document resume ed 312 386 author collum, …ed 312 386 author title institution spot s agency pub...

ED 312 386

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

SPOT S AGENCY

PUB DATENOTEPUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

CE 053 454

Collum, John M., Jr.; Gunte ', William H., Jr.A Model for Technical Equipment Assessment. ExecutiveSummary.

Georgia State Univ., Atlanta. Dept. of Vocational andCareer Development.Georgia State Dept. of Technical and Adult aaucation,Atlanta.Aug 8931p.

Reports - Research/Technical (143)

MF01/PCO2 Plus PostPTe.Business Education; *Equipment; *EquipmentEvaluation; *Equipment Standards; *EquipmentUtilization; *Facility Inventory; Inspection;Obsolescence; Postsecondary Education; Purchasing;Technical Institutes; Trade and Industrial Education;Vocational Education*Georgia

Having developed a model for assessing the state ofoccupational equipment, a study of two programs in six statetechnical institutes in Georgia found that their occupationalequipment is fast becoming obsolete and concluded that $107,476 perstate program would be needed to bring all programs up to recommendedstandards and a budget of $43,274 annually per program would beneeded to offset obsolescence. In addition, it was recommended that astatewide inventory system, such as the one called INVENTORYFIRST-ASSESS ALL Jeveloped during the study, be used for periodicassessment of the equipment in all state technical institutes and fordevelopment of an exact profile of each institute's equipment, adiscrepancy analysis, and specific recommendations for surplusing andpurchasing, based on state standards and state technical committeeequipment recommendations. This model would cost $5,000 per programif 20 program areas were assessed per year, or $530 per program ifall 660 state programs were assessed. (The document consists of listsof members of the technical equipment assessment steering committee,the automotive technology equipment advisory group, and theinformation and office technology equipment advisory group; anintroduction that explains the study and the model it produced; thefindings of the assessment concerning the automative technology andthe information and office technology programs in six institutes; asummary; and an appendix that details the study's methodology.)(CML)

* Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made* from the original document.

t.C4

GO

CYZ

C\/

7-4 A Model for Technical Equipment Assessmentcta

U S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOnce ot Edutationat Research and Improvement

EOUjLATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER ERICI

his document nas been reproduced asreceived from the person or organqattonongatat.ng tt_

Minor Changes nave been made to improvereproduction quality

Points ot view Or opinions Staredm this d0Cli-ment do not necessary represent °MowOERI position or policy

Executive Summary

Georgia CouncilOn Vocational Education

-PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

/

TO TH EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFOR ilATION CENTER (ERIC)"

2August, 1989

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

A Modelfor

Technical Equipment Assessment

Executive Summary

Developed for

Georgia Council on Vocational Education

by

Dr. John M. Collum, Jr.

Mr. William H. Gunter, Jr.

Department of Vocational and Career Development

College of Education

Georgia State University

Atlanta, Georgia

Dr. John H. Preston, Chairman

Acknowledgements

An undertaking such as this requires an amazing degree of dedication and cooperation onthe part of the agencies involved, as well as from the representatives of business andindustry. From the Georgia Council oil Vocational Education, our thanks first go out toMrs. Nellie Hoenes for providing the environment in which such an undertaking could existand to Ms. Gerry Hesse for insuring that our lines of communications were always clear.

From the Georgia Department of Technical and Adult Education, we extend our thanks toCommissioner Kenneth H. Breeden for allowing instant and easy access into the schoolsselected for the study and to Mr. Robert Mabry and Dr. Douglas L. Bolen for their inputand suggestions into all phases of this project.

Our thanks go out to the members of the Steering Committee who provided the projectstaff with opinions and suggestions based on many years of experience in the day-to-dayoperations of technical institutes.

Our special thanks to the two groups of people that worked hard and gave us the real worldperspective that such a study must have - our Equipment Advisory Groups. These peopletook the time out of their normal routines and rated slide after slide to provide us with thedata needed for our model.

Finally, this study required many meetings, each with special needs and requirements. Allcame off exactly as planned. Our thanks go to Mr. Marcus Carter, for insuring that themeetings went smoothly.

John Collum

Bill Gunter

Technical Equipment Assessment Steering Committee

Mr. Douglas L. BolenAssistant Commissioner,Institutional Support Services

Mr. Bob BullingtonMember

Dr. John CollumAssistant Chairman

Mr. Pete CrawfordVice President for Instruction

Mr. J'm J. DiffleyManager,Maintenance Administration

Mr. William GunterAssociate Project Director

Ms. Gerry "HesseSpecial Assistant

Mrs. Nellie HoenesExecutive Director

Mr. Robert MabryAssistant Commissioner,Planning and Development

Dr. John H. PrestonChairperson

Dr. Jerry RobbinsDean

Mr. J. Alvin WilbanksDirector

Georgia Department of Technical and AdultEducation


Vocational & Career Development, GeorgiaState University

Augusta Technical Institute

Delta Air Lines




Georgia Department of Technical and AdultEducation


College of Education, Georgia State University

Gwinnett Area Technical Institute

5

Automotive Technology Equipment Advisory Group

Dennis CrosbyAutomotive Instructor

Dale JenkinsService Manager

David LairdMaster Technician

Fred MasseyOwner

George PrimeAutomotive Engineer

Wallace PrivetteAutomotive Instructor

Mack SennDirector of Maintenance

Tommy SmithService Department

Dave WalkerService Department

Arthur WoodsAutomotive Engineer

De Kalb Technical Institute

Royal Oldsmobile

Royal Oldsmobile

Massey's Auto Repair

City of Atlanta

Augusta Technical Institute

Rayloc Company

Timmers Chevrolet, Inc.

Timmers Chevrolet, Inc.

City of Atlanta

Information and Office Technology Equipment Advisory Group

Nancy Anderson

Chuck BarlowSales Manager

Deloris GaddieInstructor

Patricia HughesAssistant to the Vice President

Keith Nelms

Joe Roche

John ShoemakeRetired

Richard SpiersInstructor

Elsie SwoggerInstructor

Scott Wilson

Mary Younggren

Temps & Company

Xerox Reproduction Center

De Kalb Technical Institute

West Georgia College

Georgia Tech Research Institute

IBM Corporation

I13M Corporation


3winnett Technical Institute

Hayes Microcomputer Products

Temps & Company

kl

Introduction

Overview of the Study

One of the primary missions of technica: education in Georgia is to provide the citizens ofthe state with an opportunity to obtain the knowledge, skills and attitudes required bybusiness and industry and therefore secure, maintain and advance in meaningful andsatisfying employment. Such learning should only take place on equipment that is safe,relevant and up-to-date. Furthermore, this equipment should tend to be state-of-the-art inorder to facilitate the spread of never technologies to all parts of the state. The GeorgiaDepartment of Technical and Adult Education (DTAE) was created to fulfill this mission atthe postsecondary level. The Department administers over 70 programs offered to morethan 100,000 people enrolled annually in the 29 technical institutes, 6 colleges withvocational programs, and 4 adult education centers located throughout the state.

Purpose of the Study

The primary purpose of this study was to develop a model for assessing the state ofoccupational equipment in technical institutes.

Primary Objectives of the Study

The primary objectives of this study were to:

develop a procedural model for the utilization of business and industry input in theongoing assessment and update of occupational equipment in technical institutes;

utilize this assessment model to determine the adequacy of the occupationalequipment in two technical institute instructional programs;

develop a computer database for the inventory of all occupational equipment intechnical institutes;

o develop a clearinghouse process to facilitate the sharing of unused equipmentamong technical institutes.

Other objectives included: describing the current procedures for equipment updating,inventorying and allocating funds; developing a procedural model for the acquisition of newoccupational equipment; and, using the acquisition model for developing a plan forupdating the equipment in the two selected instructional programs to state-of-the-artstandards.

August, 1989...=1,

Technical Equipment Assessment Page 1

8

Definitions

Equipment--Physical resources used in an operation or activity, gen. y of morecomplexity than a common tool.

Equipment adequate for instruction--Equipment which is safe, represents a level oftechnology comparable to that used by the appropriate businesses and industries and allowsthe ready transfer of learned knowledges and skills to similar equipment in business andindustry.

Equipment category--The term used to describe a generic grouping of similar equipment.

Instructional relevance--A piece of equipment is deemed relevant for instruction if skillslearned on that equipment are readily transferred to related equipment in business andindustry.

Level of technology--Explained by the following scale:

Level 4-- State -of- the -Art: Equipment just finding its way into cutting edge industries.

Level 3--Increasing Use: Equipment that is just entering many businesses.

Level 2--Stable Use: Equipment that currently exists in most businesses. Theknowledges and skills necessary to use the equipment are well known.

Level 1--Declining Use: Most businesses are phasing out the equipment.

Level 0--Obsolete: The equipment no longer exists in most businesses.

The equipment in the technical institutes should represent a technology "mix" that isskewed towards Levels 2 through 4 due to the need for Georgia's institutes to assist intransferring new technology to business and industry throughout the state.

Assumptions of the Study

In order to obtain the most accurate picture of "what is" in the way of equipment in thetechnical institutes, the model assumes that each program currently has the correct numberof pieces of each type of equipment for its own particular situation.

Evcritually, the "what should be" question must be addressed and must not only include theconcept of technology mix, but also the number of workstations necessary for each categoryof equipment for each program.

August, 1989 Technical Equipment Assessment

9

Page 2

The Original Model

Tile original model set forth in the proposal called for the followingsteps to occur:

Determine the program(s) to assess;

Establish the Equipment Advisory Group (EAG) made up of bt biness, industry andeducational representatives for that specific program area;

Hold the first EAG meeting to determine the categories of equipment to beassessed;

Survey the institutes offering the program for inventory data;

Input the survey data into a database;

Have slides taken of all non-duplicated pieces of equipment found in the institutes;

Hold a second EAG meeting to rate each slide according to the respective level oftechnology represented, the instructional relevance of the piece of equipment, thephysical and technologi.cal lifespans of the equipment and, for each category, criteriaand specifications as to the future of that category and the mix of technology thatshould be allowed in instructional programs.

Input the EAG data into the database; and

Generate reports by program and by institute.

The reports would provide the following information:

The estimated dollar amount required to bring the equipment in that program, forone or all institutes in the state, up to the suggested technology mix recommendedby the EAG;

The specific pieces of equipment that must be removed from the program(s) due toeither being obsolete, surplus, or deemed illegal by federal or state regulations;

Criteria and specifications for the purchase of new equipment in each category; and

The frequency suggested by the EAG for the review of each category of equipmentfor that program.

In other words, upon completion of the assessment of a program, DTAE would be able toidentify for each institute, which specific piece of equipment to surplt.s, what should bebought to replace it, and the approximate replacement cost.

August, 1989 Technical Equipment Assessment Page 3

10,J1[111:

I Model

Following is a simplified discussion of how the model works. In this example, the cattgoryof engine analyzers is being assessed in six automotive technology programs.

The six institutes are visited and slides are taken of 13 nondupkated engine analyzers.Inventory data is also obtained. Each slide is then rated by the Equipment Advisory Group(EAG) for automotive mechanics according to the following scale:

Level of Technology (LOT)

4 State-of-the Art3 Increasing Use2 Stable Use1 Declining Use0 Obsolete

In this example, out of a total of 13 engine analyzers, one is rated LOT 4, one is rated LOT3, nine are rated LOT 2, none are rated LOT 1 and two are rated as LOT 0. These numberswhen graphed, show the percent of equipment at each level of technology.

Percent100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

ENGINE ANALYZER

ft .......

0

Program: Automotive TechnologySite: Pilot Test Schools

1 2 3

Levels of Technology

Ea Existing

4


11

The preceding graph shows the result of the rating of 13 engine analyzers by the EAG inpercentages. Out of the total 13 pieces of equipment: 15 percent is LOT 0 (obsolete); 69percent is LOT 2 (stable use); 8 percent is LOT 3 (increasing use); 8 percent is LOT 4(state-of-the art). Note that the percentage of LOT 2 equipment is more than double thecombined percentages of the other 3 levels of technology. Also, note that the percentage ofobsolete equipment is approximately the same as the combined percentages of LOT 3 at.dLOT 4.

Next, the EAG decides on a suggested technology mix for engine analyzers in anyinstructional program. In this instance, the EAG did not recommend any obsoleteequipment although it is possible for equipment to be recommended for all five levels oftechnology. Below is a graph showing what an actual EAG recommended for engineanalyzers.

Percent100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

ENGINE ANALYZER

0


1 2 3


111 Recommended

4

The above graph shows the EAG's suggested usage rating in percentages for the engineanalyzer equipment category. The EAG recommends 80 percent of the equipment bedivided evenly between LOT 2 and LOT 3. The remaining 20 percent should be LOT 4equipment.

Ow


1°4,

Superimposing these two graphs yields the final category profile for engine analyzers.

Percent100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

ENGINE ANALYZER

0 1 2 3


MI Existing inni Recommended


4

The above graph shows actual percentages versus recommended. Note that in LOT 2(stable use) 29 percent or 4 of the 13 total number of pieces of equipment should bereplaced with level 3 and/or level 4 equipment.

Based on the profile above, to bring the equipment in this category up to recommendations,the following actions would be suggested:

1. Two pieces of equipment at LOT 0 should be surplused.2. Four pieces of equipment at LOT 2 should be sent to a clearinghouse.3. Four pieces of equipment at LOT 3 should be purchased.4. Two pieces of equipment at LOT 4 should be purchased.

The equipment removed from these programs could possibly be used at another institute orin a secondary program. Note that other types of equipment (e.g., computers) couldpossibly be relocated to another program within the same institute.

Assuming that the number of engine analyzers in each program is correct, at an estimatedcost of $35,000 for each new engine analyzer, $210,000 should be expended to bring thecategory of engine analyzers up to recommendations in all six programs.


13

Findings

The Automotive Technology Program

The following graph represents the findings of the Automotive Technology programs in the6 pilot test schools. The existing percentages for the levels of technology were obtained bydividing the number of pieces of equipment in each level of technology, as rated by theEAG, by the total number of pieces surveyed. The recommended percentages for thelevels of technology are an average of the suggested usage rating made by the EAG for eachcategory.

Percent100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

00

AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY

Site: Pilot Test Schools

1 2 3


M Existing Recommended

4

The above graph shows that the majority (69%) of the equipment in the combined 6 pilotschools is LOT 2 (stable use). This is 13% less than the EAG suggested usage of 82%.Note the suggested usage of 7% assigned to LOT 0 (obsolete) equipment. Although theequipment is obsolete, it is relevant for instructional use and could remain in the program.Also note, the EAG recommended 0% of LOT 1 (declining use) equipment.

Following is a table of the findings for Automotive Technology. The data represented inthe above graph can be found in the following table. All replacement values are based onretail prices quoted by the EAG.


FINDINGS

AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY

AUTOMOTIVE

TOTAL #

OF PIECESACTION(1)

COST OF 6

PROGRAMS

COST OF 1

PROGRAM

(AVG)

EST COST

OF 31

PROGRAMSNO YES

A B C D E F

TOTAL 270 $1,174,070 $195,678 $6,066,018

2 AVERAGE COST / PIECE EQUIPMENT 1 $4,348

3 LEVEL 0 45 (17%) 10 35 $222,300 $37,050 $1,14:,550

4 LEVEL 1 22 (8%) 0 22 $15,650 $2,608 $80,848

5 LEVEL 2 186 (69%) 166 20 $134,600 $22,433 $695,423

6 LEVEL 3 14 (5%) 13 1 $0 $0 $0

7 LEVEL 4 3 (1%) 3 0 $0 $0 $0

8 TOTAL UPGRADE 270 (100%) 192 78 $372,550 $62,091 $1,924,821

Cell B1 is the total number of pieces of equipment rated by the EAG. Cell El is the current replace:nent cost of the 270 pieces. Cell F1 is an averagereplacement cc,,t per program (E1/6). Cell GI is the estimated replacement cost of all Automotive Technology equipment in the state (F1*31). CellE2 is an average replacement cost for one piece (E1/B1). Cell E2 is not used for any other calculations in this table. Cells B3-D8 are the results of theEAG ratings. Cells C3-C8 are the number of pieces of equipment that require no action to be taken. Cells D3-D8 are the number of pieces of equipmentthat should be either: moved to a.lother program within the institute, offered to another institute through a Clearing House process, offered to a secondaryprogram; or surplused. Cells E3-E8 are the costs required to bring the pilot test schools up to EAG recommendations. Cells F3-F8 are the averagecosts to bring 1 program up to EAG recommendations. Cells G3-G8 are estimated costs to bring all the Automotive Technology programs up to EAGrecommendations (F3..F8*31).(1) Assuming the total number of pieces of equipment in each category is that required by the program, based on its particular situation.

IS. IG

The, following graph represents the findings of the Information and Office Technologyprograms in the 6 pilot test schools. The existing percentq,es for the levels of technologywere obt::'ned by dividing the number of pieces of eqt.,pment in each level of technology,ac.., rated by the EAG, by the total number of pieces survt yed. The recommendedpereentaf es fLr the levels of technology are an average of the .)uggested usage rating madeby the EAG for each category.

100

90

8G

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

INFORMATION and OFFICE TECHNOLOGY

Percent

0


1 2 3


[M] Existing ing Recommended

4

The above graph shows that the majority (71%) of the equipment in the combined 6 pilotschools falls into LOT 0 (obsolete) and LOT 1 (declining use). The EAG recommendedthat only 8% of the equipment be LOT 1 and 0% for LOT 0. Note that the recommendedusage is 46% in LOT 2 and 40 % in LOT 3. The explanation for the heavy weighting inLOT 3 is the rapidly changing technology in this particular program.

Following is a table of the findings for Information and Office Technology. The datarepresented in the above graph can be found in the following table. Again, all replacementcost values are based on retail prices as quoted by the EAG.


17

FINDINGS

INFORMATION AND OFFICE TECHNOLOGY

INFORMATION AND OFFICE

TOTAL #

OF PIECESACTION( /

COST OF 6

PROGRAMS

COST OF 1

PROGRAM

(AVG)

EST COST

OF 32

PROGRAMSNO YES

A B C D E F G

1 TOTAL 1389 $1,207,110 $201,185 $6,437,920

2 AVERAGE COST / PIECE EQUIPMENT 1 $869

3 LEVEL 0 395 (28%) 0 395 $242,395 $40,399 $1,211,970

4 LEVEL 1 604 (44%) 171 433 $647,335 $107,889 $3,236,670

5 LEVEL 2 357 (26%) 299 58 $27,430 $4,572 $137,160

6 LEVEL 3 33 (2%) 33 0 $0 $0 $0

7 LEVEL 4 0 (u%) 0 0 $0 $0 $0

8 TOTAL UPGRADE 1389 (100%) 503 886 $917,160 $152,860 $4,585,800

Cell B1 is the total number of pieces of equipment rated by the EAG. Cell E1 is the current replacementcost of the 1389 pieces. Cell F1 is an averagereplacement cost per program (E116). Cell G1 is the estimated replacement cost of all Information and Office Technology equipment in the state(F1*32). Cell E2 is an average replacement cost for one piece (El /B1). Cell E2 is not used for any other calculations in this table. Cells B3-D8 are theresults of the EAG ratings. Cells C3-C8 are the number of pieces of equipment that require no action to be taken. Cells D3-D8 are the number of piecesof equipment that should be either: mrived to another program within the institute, offered to another institute througha Clearing House process, offeredto a secondary program; or surplused. Cells E3-E8 are the costs required to bring the pilot test schools up to EAG recommendations. Cells F3-F8 arethe average costs to bring 1 program up to EAG recommendations. Cells G3-G8 are estimated costs to bring all the Information and Office Technologyprograms up to EAG recommendations (F3..F8*32).(1) Assuming the total number of pieces of equipment in each category is that required by the program, based on its particular situatiun.

18 19

Projected Data

Following is a graph of the combined findings for Automotive Technology (AUT) andInformation and Office Technology (I0T). This was done only to provide an example ofstatewide data.

Percent100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

STATE PROFILE

0


1 2 3


MI Existing MEI Recommended

4

After combining the equipment ratings for the AUT and IOT programs, the projected stateprofile indicates that the majority of the equipment (64%) currently in use in technicalinstitutes falls into LOT 0 (obsolete) and LOT 1 (declining use). Note that therecommendations suggest 73% of the combined equipment be LOT 2 (stable use). Thisgraph can be used to give an overall indication of the condition of th_ equipment in thestate. It cannot, however, be used as a basis for purchasing equipment in any program.

By taking the data obtained from two programs in six institutes and projecting to allprograms in the state, some indication as to the magnitude of the problem facing DTAE astechnology continues to change can be roughly estimated. Two problems exist. The firstproblem is bringing the existing equipment up to the level recommended by business andindustry. The magnitude of this first problem is in the range of 40-100 million dollars. Thesecond problem is maintaining the level recommended by business and industry. Thisproblem occurs every year as technology changes and equipment ages. Again, using thetechnological lifespan data collected in 12 programs, and projecting statewide, themagnitude of the second problem is in the range of 15-45 million dollars a year.


20

Sample Reports

The reports that can be generated by the database begin at the lowest level (equipment)and proceed up to the highest level (state). Examples of non-profile reports are:

Equipment Action Report--This report would be provided for each program. Thereport provides the plan of action necessary to bring the program up to EAGrecommendations. Individual pieces of equipment are listed along with therecommended action to be taken.

Category Summary Report--This report would also be provided to each program.The report contains summary data for each category of equipment. The reportwould be useful for quickly determining where major problems exist and theestimated expenditures necessary to meet recommendations.

Program Summary Report--This report would be of interest to the president of atechnical institute. The report shows, for each program in the institute, an estimateof how much should be expended to bring that program up to EAGrecommendations.

Institute Summary Report--This report would be of interest to DTAE. The reportshows, for each institute, an estimate of how much should be expended to bring theequipment in each institute up to recommended levels.

Examples of profile reports are:

Category Profile Report--This report would contain the graphical profiles showingthe actual mix of technology in one category of equipment in a program, the mixrecommended by the EAG and the average mix in all similar programs in the state.

Program Profile Report--This report represents a graphical profile of all categoriesof equipment for one program, the average mix recommended by the EAG and theaverage profile for all like programs in the state.

State Profile Report--This report provides at a glance, the state of the equipment inthe technical institutes in Georgia. All equipment categories are represented alongwith the average of the recommended mix of technology by the EAGs.


21

Recommendations

(As approved by the Georgia Council on Vocational Education - July 27-28, 1989)

The Postsecondary Equipment Assessment Model was originally conceived as being used inconjunction with a standardized inventory system which accurately represented the existingequipment in each program area. At the technical institutes where the Model was piloted,this assumption was found to be unwarranted for the most part. Each ;nstitute encounteredin the pilot seemed to have a somewhat different way to maintain its inventory. Some ofthe institutes relied on computer printouts of inventory, which, upon closer scrutiny, werefound to be inaccurate in many cases. In fact, the equipment assessment process washindered because there was no uniform system of inventory in place. For this reason, it isstrongly recommended that a uniform inventory system, as required by the PostsecondaryEquipment Assessment Model, be implemented before the Assessment Model is used.Hence, the following specific recommendations are made:

1. The standardized systemwide inventory process adopted by the Department ofTechnical and Adult Education (DTAE) should be in place for any program area inwhich the Postsecondary Equipment Assessment Model is to be used. It isrecommended that, eventually, the standardized inventory system should be in placefor all programs and that the instructional equipment in all of the program areasshould be assessed using the Postsecondary Equipment Assessment Model.

2. The unified system for the inventory of existing equipment which DTAE adoptsshould involve going to each individual piece of equipment for make, model, serialnumber, and other relevant data. Existing databases should NOT be reliA upon toset up this inventory system.

3. The unified inventory system, which is compatible with DOAS requirements, such asPROPS, should include a process for adding new purchases to the inventory, as wellas a process for easily removing outdated equipment.

4. The guidelines for a uniform inventory system should be established by DTAE, withthe process implemented and maintained by each institution.

5. DTAE should designate a state-level person to be responsible for the coordinationof the systemwide inventory and assessment of equipment.

6. A listing of the inventory should be submitted by each institute to the DTAE at leastannually until this information can be made available through the systemwidedatabase DTAE is currently building. By adding inventory data to the systemwidedatabase, inventory information would be on-line, in easily accessible form.


22

Page 13

7. The inventory process should use a data structure which is compatible with DOASrequirements, such as PROPS, and also should provide the fields necessary for useby the Assessment Model. It is suggested that maintaining the inventory in dBase IIImight be appropriate for this purpose.

8. It was found that providing a v:ival representation of each type of equipment in theinventory along with an identification number which tied it to the database, greatlyfacilitated the use of the equipment assessment. Therefore, it is recommended thatDTAE retain this component of the assessment and explore ways to simplify thisprocedure. One method of providing this visual representation would be to have aquality slide of each type of equipment, if not each piece, taken by the local mediaspecialist or some other appropriate perso'. at each institution.

It is further recommended that the visual representation be submitted to the DTAEcoordinator of inventory and assessment with an identification number which ties itto the database entry for that piece/type of equipment.

9. Although the need for flexibility at the institutional level is recognized, it isrecommended that the Board of Technical and Adult Education establish standardsnot just for the type of instructional equipment and the technological mix of theequipment required for each program area, but also establish standards for thenumber of pieces of each type of instructional equipment which is necessary toprovide an adequate program.

10. The Postsecondary Equipment Assessment Model should be updated continuallythrough the input of state technical committees and program advisory committees.Together, these committees recommend equipment standards and/or rate thetechnology of existing equipment, as well as make recommendations for programstandards which may affect instructional equipment choices. Through the ongoinginput of these committees, the Model may not only be kept up-to-date, butstreamlined as well.

FURTHER, the Council recommends that the Department of Technical and AdultEducation begin putting the systemwide inventory system in place immediately. DTAEshould request funds for the assessment of equipment for approximately 20 program areasduring FY'91 and annually thereafter so that the assessment of the equipment for allprograms can be completed by FY'93.


23Page 14

Summary

The occupational equipment in Georgia's technical institutes is fast becoming obsolete. Ina survey of only two programs in six instit. 3, this study determined that $1,289,710, or$107,476 per individual program, would be required to bring these programs up torecomn.ended standards. In addition, approximately $43,274 would have to be buck- tedannually per individual program to offset eventual obsolescence.

It is clear that some process should be initiated to obtain a clear picture of what currentlyexists in the programs in the way of equipment and how that equipment is perceived bybusiness and industry. We believe that process should consist of a well-designed, statewideinventory system followed by th'.. periodic assessment of all equipment in all programs.

Once an accurate inventory system is established, assessment becomes much moresimplified. Institutes do not have to be visited, photographers do not have to be employed.Survey forms do not have to be mailed out. If such an equipment assessment system weft.in place, the assessment could be done on all programs. This model would combine theconcept of level of technology and technology mix with the state standards and statetechnical committee equipment recommendations for each program to provide a completediscrepancy analysis. This system would furnish all institutes with an exact profile of theirequipment along with specific recommendations for surplusing and purchasing. Highlyaccurate information would be available to DTAE on the total replacement value of allequipment, the yearly cost to keep equipment up to the suggested industry profiles and thestatus of each program in each institute. This model then, called INVENTORYFIRST-ASSESS ALL, would allow business and industry, through the equipment advisorygroups, maximum input into the equipment used in the technical institutes and is the modelrecommended by the project staff. This model would cost $5,000 per program areaassuming 20 program areas are assessed per year. The complete cycle would take 36months to complete. Based on 660 individual programs in the state, the cost per programwould be $530.


44ni:

Page 15

Appendix

25

Methodology

The following sections detail the methodology used in this study. These activities are alsographically represented on the Gantt chart at the end of this section.

I III 14 I

The Steering Committee met initially on 10-04-88. The purpose of the meeting was todescribe the project, present the contractors original model and obtain input andsuggestions from all parties. The project staff presented a simulation, using actual slides ofequipment, of how the data would be collected, analyzed and presented. The simulationwas well received and the initial model was approved. Additional fields were thensuggested for the database that would be developed, the two programs that would be pilottested were identified, the makeup of the Equipment Ad....ory Groups was discussed andthe state technical institutes were categorized as either rural or urban.

Selection of the Institutes

Two urban and four rural institutes to be included in the pilot test were randomly selected.The institutes selected in the urban category were Augusta Tech and Gwinnett Tech, andthe rural institutes were Carroll Tech, Heart of Georgia Tech, Lanier Tech and NorthGeorgia Tech.

Steering Committee Meeting #2

The second meeting of the Steering Committee was held on 10-21-83. The two programs toassess were finalized. They were Automotive Technology and Information OfficeTechnology (I0T).

FayipmentAdvisory Meetings - #1

The initial meeting of the Automotive Mechanics Equipment Advisory Group was held on11-29-88, and the initial meeting of the IOT Equipment Advisory Group was held on12-01-88. The meetings were used to identify ho.. all of the occupational equipment in therespective typical programs could be categ-. ized.

August, 1989 Technical Equipment Assessment Page I

26

Design of the Database

A computer database was developed that could serve as the beginning of an inventorydatabase for the equipment in the technical institutes. The programming was done usingdBase III + so that the database could be accessed from a microcomputer. The structure ofthe database is as follows:

Reference number Equipment category

Equipment name Equipment model

Manufacturer Serial number

Vendor Institute ID #

Program ID# Inventory ID#

Date of purchase Date of manufacture

Date of last major overhaul (if applic). Original cost

Replacement cost Lifespan

Date evaluated Photo ID#

Photo date Location (bldg, room)

Data on shared equipment Level of technology rating

Instructional relevance rating Instructional usage rating

The database also includes data for each category of equipment:

Level of technology profile

Equipment trend data

ne_ggn of the eyv

A survey form was developed that would capture all of the data necessary for the dataanalysis. This form, along with specific instructions and a cover letter from CommissionerKen Breeden, was then mailed to the pilot te. institutes on 12-09-88.

Identification of a Photographer

On 01-09-89, bid forms for photographic services were distributed and a photographer wasselected on the basis of low bid for color slides.


d

Page II

Initial Database Listings

As the survey forms returned from the institutes, the data was keyed into the database. Thisprocess took 51 hours for the two programs in the six institutes. This represents an averageof 4.25 hours required for each program in each institute.

Taking ti-; Slides

On 01-26-89, the photographer and all project staff met at Gwinnett Tech for the first photosession. Printouts of the database indicated which specific pieces of equipment needed tobe photographed (so tha' no slides were ,Iken of duplicate pieces of equipment). Eachpiece of equipment was biven a unique picture identification number that would show up inthe slide and was photographed three times at different exposures. Both the Automotiveand IOT programs were photographed in less than four hours. The last institute wasphotographed on 02-08-89.

A total of 1260 slides were taken in the 12 programs of 289 pieces of equipment. Due tothe poor quality of the survey data, many unnecessary slides were taken.

o-1 4 et 1,4--

The second meeting of the IOT EAG was held on 02-14-89. After a review of the progressto date and a discussion of the procedures for rating the slides, the group proceeded toexamine the slides taken in the six pilot test institutes. Slides of equipment were randomlyarranged within each category. Each slide was rated on level of technology, instructionalrelevance, physical lifespan and technological lifespan. At the end of each category, thegroup discussed the suggested mix of technology that should be in the IOT Program for thatcategory of equipment and the future of that category in business and industry and providedcriteria, specifications and replacement costs for purchases of equipment within thatcategory. The group took 4.5 hours to rate 104 slides. At the end of the meeting, the groupwas asked to evaluate the process used to rate the slides. The group was unanimous instating that the consensus method used to rate the slides was the best suited.

ei i t I. I LA-- Is 1. In, e- #2

The second meeting of the Automotive EAG was held on 02-22-89. The process wasidentical to the IOT EAG. The group took 3.5 hours to rate 185 slides. At the end of themeeting, the group was asked to evaluate the process used to rate the slides. The gn ,p wasunanimous in stating that the consensus method used to rate the slideswas th- b. . tsited.

Final Data Entry

Upon completion of the rating of the slides, this data was added to the database. Thisprocess required 18.5 hours of keyboarding. This ai,erages out to 1.5 hours per program perinstitute.

August, 1989 Technical Equipment Assessment Page III

26

Data Analysis

Over 200 manhours were spent analyzing the data contained in the database to produce thetables and graphs in this report.

Preparation of the Executive Summary

The project staff realized near the end of the data collection process that well over 500graphs could be generated by the data. The graphs combined with analysis discussionsrepresented a large amount of information that would be contained in the technical report.A decision was made to incorporate the highlights of the process, findings andrecommendations into an executive summary. This summary would be more readily suitedto a larger oistribution than the technical report. A copy of the technical report can beobtained form the Georgia Council on Vocational Education.


no4 J

Page IV

04/25/89

Task

1 Start-Up Meeting

2 Literature Review

3 ID Current4 Phase I Database

5 ID Steering Comm.

6 Steering Comm. Mtg.

7 Select Programs

8 ID EAG

9 School Selection

10 EAG Meeting I

11 Survey

12 Photographs

13 EAG Meeting II

14 Phase II Database

15 Review Models

16 Dev. Clear. Process

17 Dev. Model N.E.A.

18 Dev. Update Plan

19 Steering Comm. Mtg.

20 Final Report

21 Wrap-Up Meeting

22 End

30

Sep 88

MI-111111

-AM--MEM

Technical Equipment Assessment ProjectGantt Chart

Oct

NM

Nov Dec

11111111111111111=111I

Jan 89

document resume ed 312 386 author collum, …ed 312 386 author title institution spot s agency pub...

Documents